I'm reading Pete Carrol's book. The first thing is that he comes off as sort of a touchy-feely "player's coach". This is motivating for college players - helps them play up to their full potential, but in the NFL guys are pros and already playing to their full potential. When PC went on that incredible run at UCS the Trojan coaching staff were running this hardcore practice regimine to get the players to run the plays as precisely as humanly possible, with an emphasis on game execution. Again, this brought these players up to a level that is rare in college, but not in the pros where the players already know how to execute at the highest level.

Carrol is a "player's coach", with the emphasis on "competing". On page 84 in the book he says "Competition to me is not about beating the opponent. It's about doing your best."

I read that and I was like WFT?!? In the pros you better be about beating your opponent. This motivation rah-rah thing will get you a lot of wins in college where you are working with guys coming out of high school, but is far less effective in the pros where they are already playing at close to their highest potential.

I don't think PC is a bad NFL coach, just not a great one. Maybe a 500 NFL coach. Schnieder deserves a lot of credit for the Seahawks at this point.

Your not thinking about this from a psychological standpoint is the problem. Pete's mantra is not do be "rah-rah" and baby the players into winning. His strategy is one all great CEOs and others leaders use, which is to pull the best out of each individual by motivating him to be his best. He uses positive re-inforcement to guide the players in the right direction, which is why people get the "rah-rah" vibe from him. Some other coaches use a more corrective negative reinforcement strategy to motivate their players, which works in some situations also.

Considering they have turned around the roster in just over 2 years to the point that we are talking playoffs I would say he has done a pretty good job. He has 1 playoff win thus far under his belt which a lot of current coaches cant say. I don't think we will know if Pete's coaching style works or will be able to accurately judge him till after next year. They have had a plan since day 1 and have stuck to it. Pete does have a superbowl ring, safe to say his coaching worked.

Is it Pete's week this week? I realize after a loss this forum and its members love to point fingers and try to fire or cut someone. I wish a better forum history was kept so we could bump threads later on.

therealjohncarlson wrote:Your not thinking about this from a psychological standpoint is the problem. Pete's mantra is not do be "rah-rah" and baby the players into winning. His strategy is one all great CEOs and others leaders use, which is to pull the best out of each individual by motivating him to be his best. He uses positive re-inforcement to guide the players in the right direction, which is why people get the "rah-rah" vibe from him. Some other coaches use a more corrective negative reinforcement strategy to motivate their players, which works in some situations also.

I do understand that. But a college player's potential is just a hell of a lot higher than a pro player's potential - the pro is already at close to as good as he is capable of playing. So PC is slightly effective in the pros, but highly effective in college.

The competition mantra is healthy. His approach to coaching the players seems to work. His problem is game planning. He needs to learn that it's OK to go with a hot hand in a game even when it strays from his philosophy.

If Wilson is hot and the passing game is working then ride his arm like a rented mule. If the zone is getting picked apart by worthless teams then go man coverage and blitz the hell out of teams.

therealjohncarlson wrote:Your not thinking about this from a psychological standpoint is the problem. Pete's mantra is not do be "rah-rah" and baby the players into winning. His strategy is one all great CEOs and others leaders use, which is to pull the best out of each individual by motivating him to be his best. He uses positive re-inforcement to guide the players in the right direction, which is why people get the "rah-rah" vibe from him. Some other coaches use a more corrective negative reinforcement strategy to motivate their players, which works in some situations also.

I do understand that. But a college player's potential is just a hell of a lot higher than a pro player's potential - the pro is already at close to as good as he is capable of playing. So PC is slightly effective in the pros, but highly effective in college.

No they aren't. That's why the draft is all about potential and not about sure things.

I think PC is an example of the "Peter Principle" where a guy who is great on one level will be promoted until he is on a level where he is mediocre. PC is a great DC, but he never stuck at that level.

therealjohncarlson wrote:Your not thinking about this from a psychological standpoint is the problem. Pete's mantra is not do be "rah-rah" and baby the players into winning. His strategy is one all great CEOs and others leaders use, which is to pull the best out of each individual by motivating him to be his best. He uses positive re-inforcement to guide the players in the right direction, which is why people get the "rah-rah" vibe from him. Some other coaches use a more corrective negative reinforcement strategy to motivate their players, which works in some situations also.

I do understand that. But a college player's potential is just a hell of a lot higher than a pro player's potential - the pro is already at close to as good as he is capable of playing. So PC is slightly effective in the pros, but highly effective in college.

I'm going to call bullcrap on that. In fact, most college players have been taught nothing. Did you play in high school? I did and felt I had no understanding of the game or technique. I knew our 20 plays by heart, but that's about all. I didn't even understand who was to cover who.

I got to college and started understanding the game because my dad was a coach and would explain things to me, but a lot of college players are completely raw. They still don't understand. My friend at work was first team all conference on a team that finished in the top 10. He said he had no idea how defenses even functioned until he was a senior. i was explaining things and he goes "geez, did you play in the NFL?" I said, "No, but my dad was a coach, and then I coached, and I've studied a ton of stuff and can see what is going on at a little different level than your average fan." He goes, "Seriously you'd be surprised how many players know nothing beyond what they do in a specific formation. I didn't have any idea what the LB's and DB's were doing behind me. I knew when I was to hold the line, when I was to stunt, when I was to shoot a gap, and when I was to drop back into coverage which was almost never. That's all I needed to know, and that is depressing considering that we were a top ten team and I got invited to the combine."

He gets it now and we have really in depth discussions, but he felt that he would have a ton to learn in the NFL and felt many guys weren't capable of learning it.

The fact that Pete has degrees that make him a "real teacher" shows me that he can get more out of players by teaching them first what is going on overall from an X's and O's perspective. I taught 6th graders the basics and they were blown away about what was going on and played as such a cohesive unit.

I feel the vast majority of teams in college basically just try to make it through the season. They don't do massive film study and have players at their full potential. Bruce Irvin was playing at a top program and knew one move and admitted that he didn't receive any specific coaching. They just told him to go get the QB. He did. But we've seen him grow.

Look at Chris Clemons and his career or Patrick Kerney. They got progressively better by leaps and bounds as they learned the nuances of the game. I think there is many times exponential growth from college to the pros in understanding and therefore performance. Why do you think Holmgren was so successful. He was a certified teacher and made sure he sat down in a classroom and assured that every single guy on the team knew what was happening on every play. Look at how K-Rob blocked. He wasn't known as a blocker in college, but when he knew what was happening on the play he'd run his route like it was coming to him as a disguise and then turn and start blocking just as the run was coming up on him. For all of his faults as an actual pass catcher, I've seen very few guys ever who were as great at blocking from the WR position and had such great awareness of the running play coming near him and his need to change from looking like he was running a crisp route expecting the ball to becoming essentially a lineman downfield.

Pete is putting in a system where he expects a lot from everybody. This is not an overnight process. In education the mantra is that it takes 3 full years to make a noticeable change in an institution (school, district, state, etc.). I feel that with his organization he's made a good change in 3 years. We're sitting on 6 wins right now. We finished with 7 the previous 2. I think we win 9 this year, which sets up for exactly what I'd predict as a fellow educator. The 4th year should see a significant jump as everything is fully in place. He's doing things right by me. It doesn't always work, but like all great teachers, Pete learns something every week. Now his OC and DC may not... but I know he does and covers it. His pressers show that he clearly understands the issues and what needs to be attacked in the week ahead.

Lords of Scythia wrote:I think PC is an example of the "Peter Principle" where a guy who is great on one level will be promoted until he is on a level where he is mediocre. PC is a great DC, but he never stuck at that level.

He's 6-5 this season in contention for a wild card spot, one playoff win, rebuilt the team, and you want to invoke the Peter Principle? Save that for Norv Turner or Wade Phillips.

You are taking this loss way too hard.

Last edited by Basis4day on Tue Nov 27, 2012 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm OK with the rah rah "always compete," or "players coach" tag that gets put on Pete. Lots of so called players coaches have succeeded in the NFL. Jimmie Johnson, Tony Dungy, Dick Vermeil, all considered "players coaches."

Carroll's a great talent evaluator, a great motivator and is one of the better defensive minds in football. So far that's as far as I'm willing to stick my neck out for him. The jury's still out on X's and O's, scheming and game planning (both week of and in game) and clock/time out management. His ego also tends to get in the way of his own sensibilities sometimes.

Steve2222 wrote:Topics the week after a win= Can any team beat us?Topics the week after a loss= Pete Carroll is officially on the hot seat.

Ive never seen such a bipolar fan base. Not everybody is like this, but theres tons on this board.

Nice one! No kidding. Just think in 5 weeks we'll probably be a wildcard team. If that is the case than PC will have lead his team to the playoffs 2 of the 3 years he's been here. Yet people think he's on the hot seat. I don't get it.

Maybe it's unfair but it all falls on the coach. PC's college coach stigma with his just less than break even NFL career win/loss record is added wood for the fire that's blazing now with the team. Penalties back, just one road win, a defense that is digressing and player suspensions looming is just cause for concern that maybe PC is losing his grip on the team. I hope not but the drop off is starting to seem like the view from the rim of the Grand Canyon.

It's impossible for the head coach not to get the heat for systemic problems such as these. Again, it may be unfair but that's the way it is.

" Living on Earth isn't cheap, but it does include a yearly free trip around the sun."

v1rotv2 wrote:Maybe it's unfair but it all falls on the coach. PC's college coach stigma with his just less than break even NFL career win/loss record is added wood for the fire that's blazing now with the team. Penalties back, just one road win, a defense that is digressing and player suspensions looming is just cause for concern that maybe PC is losing his grip on the team. I hope not but the drop off is starting to seem like the view from the rim of the Grand Canyon.

I'm not at the edge of the Grand Canyon with you, not just yet anyway.

But yeah what troubles me most is the continuation of some serious problems that aren't being corrected, and THAT is most definitely at the feet of the coach(es).

He always told players both college and pro that if they went out on the field and honestly played the very best they could play every play,(competed against themselves so to speak), that win or lose they could come off the field with their heads high and be winners.

Steve2222 wrote:Topics the week after a win= Can any team beat us?Topics the week after a loss= Pete Carroll is officially on the hot seat.

Ive never seen such a bipolar fan base. Not everybody is like this, but theres tons on this board.

The bipolar fan base is common in the NFL. Having lived in Baltimore for a few years now I see it come in and out week by week with the Ravens. Most of their flipping revolves around Joe Flacco and Cam Cameron (they've had up and down hate about kickers a lot as well). When things are bad the offensive coordinators are primary targets unless they're putting up lots of points and not putting up the defense to win.

Around here it's

Week after a win= SUPER BOWL WIN!!!Week after a loss= Joe Flacco sucks, we need to sign a better QB of the street, Cam Cameron can't call plays.

The Eagles fans around here either think Mike Vick is a god or the worst QB of all time (depending on the week in each season). Andy Reid is either a genius or a moron.

The people who have these sorts of hard line opinions from week to week are probably the same people who have really strong opinions about everything, no matter how little they know about the subject.

Lords of Scythia wrote:I'm reading Pete Carrol's book. The first thing is that he comes off as sort of a touchy-feely "player's coach". This is motivating for college players - helps them play up to their full potential, but in the NFL guys are pros and already playing to their full potential. When PC went on that incredible run at UCS the Trojan coaching staff were running this hardcore practice regimine to get the players to run the plays as precisely as humanly possible, with an emphasis on game execution. Again, this brought these players up to a level that is rare in college, but not in the pros where the players already know how to execute at the highest level.

Carrol is a "player's coach", with the emphasis on "competing". On page 84 in the book he says "Competition to me is not about beating the opponent. It's about doing your best."

I read that and I was like WFT?!? In the pros you better be about beating your opponent. This motivation rah-rah thing will get you a lot of wins in college where you are working with guys coming out of high school, but is far less effective in the pros where they are already playing at close to their highest potential.

I don't think PC is a bad NFL coach, just not a great one. Maybe a 500 NFL coach. Schnieder deserves a lot of credit for the Seahawks at this point.

I am not convinced Pete will end up deemed an NFL success, but this he is a college coach not a pro coach is utter nonsense. He has gone head to head and beat guys like Jon Harbaugh, Tom Coughlin, and Bill Belichick, and done it with good game planning.

Lords of Scythia wrote:John Schnieder largely built this team - including the rookie qb - and does not get his due. PC gets too much credit for building the current Seahawks.

Who chose John Schneider.... oh that's right PETE did. Who has final say on all personnel matters? OH, that's right PETE does. Pete doesn't get enough credit for bringing in John Schneider to help evaluate talent, and work in exactly the opposite manner than Holmgren did at first and later with Ruskell.

Lords of Scythia wrote:I'm reading Pete Carrol's book. The first thing is that he comes off as sort of a touchy-feely "player's coach". This is motivating for college players - helps them play up to their full potential, but in the NFL guys are pros and already playing to their full potential. When PC went on that incredible run at UCS the Trojan coaching staff were running this hardcore practice regimine to get the players to run the plays as precisely as humanly possible, with an emphasis on game execution. Again, this brought these players up to a level that is rare in college, but not in the pros where the players already know how to execute at the highest level.

Carrol is a "player's coach", with the emphasis on "competing". On page 84 in the book he says "Competition to me is not about beating the opponent. It's about doing your best."

I read that and I was like WFT?!? In the pros you better be about beating your opponent. This motivation rah-rah thing will get you a lot of wins in college where you are working with guys coming out of high school, but is far less effective in the pros where they are already playing at close to their highest potential.

I don't think PC is a bad NFL coach, just not a great one. Maybe a 500 NFL coach. Schnieder deserves a lot of credit for the Seahawks at this point.

What is with people and their need for instant gratification?

The Seattle Seahawk football team was devoid of talent at all positions when Pete took over less than three years ago. In his first season as coach, Pete took a team that had the talent to win about 2 games and won 7. A starting point was established.

In his second year, after another 100+ transactions, and with no offseason to speak of, a new below average QB, his team started off slowly, but finished well down the stretch. I don't know about you, but most teams that have a turnover that great don't start off that well. We saw a defense that was ranked at the bottom of the league the year before finish in the top 10 in this, Pete's second season. Improvement? Definitely.

Now, his third season, Pete finally found his QB, a rookie third round selection. I don't know what's expected from a team starting a rookie at QB and MLB, but personally, I expected growing pains. Wouldn't you know, the rookie QBs first few games weren't very good. His last 5 games, however, he is among the top 10 in passer rating. The offense is starting to hit its stride. The defense is now a top 5 unit. The Seahawks have more wins than they did at this time last season too. Improvement? Abso-fricking-lutely.

Pete has this team improving...CONSTANTLY. Of course, there will be setbacks, but overall the team has done NOTHING BUT IMPROVE since Pete showed up in Seattle. After seeing everything Pete has done since his arrival, I don't know how anyone can say that what he is doing can't work because IT IS WORKING.

Take your personal feelings and your hatred of USC out of the equation and maybe take a step back. Look at where this team is compared to where it was when Pete took over. The players are still learning how to win. Being as young as they are, they sometimes underestimate the quality of the opponents. Most of these guys played on college teams that could just show up and get a win over their opponents more often than not. Learning that that doesn't work in the NFL takes time.

Watching the past few weeks of games I've noticed the guys that played for the "non college, rah rah style coaches" prior to playing for Pete ie. Trufant and Hill, seem to be the ones that are getting beat for big plays. "Pete's" guys are doing well. Maybe the problem lies with them and their failures. Maybe those guys aren't buying in. Considering that the Seahawks are among the youngest teams in the league, I believe that Pete's "rah-rah" style is what IS needed in Seattle right now.

How's that "old school" approach working in Philly, San Diego, Arizona, New York (Jets), Buffalo? It's amazing how players play so much better for those coaches. Sure, you could name all the "old school" coaches that have winning teams, but before you do, look and you'll see that most of them have had their skill position players together for a few years....a luxury in the NFL. With the Seahawks being one of the youngest teams in the league and playing as well as they are, just think how much better they'll be with some time to grow together.

Maybe you should stop telling us that Pete's style doesn't work until AFTER his team stops improving. Your words seem pretty hollow to me.

The bottom line is that the team has some serious problems they'll have to overcome in order to get into the playoffs. PC's metal will be whether or not he can fix them AND will the players respond? We have to hope so.

" Living on Earth isn't cheap, but it does include a yearly free trip around the sun."

One of Pete's main Mantra's is "It's not about them, it's about us." To paraphrase "We aren't worried about beating them, we are worried about our game."

Most successful coaches teach this way and you'll hear it almost every week from a different player on a different team.

The reason behind this thinking is that the game is all about execution. The coaches consider the other team when drawing up their game plan on how to attack or defend them, then give it to the players to implement. During practice the only thing the players need to focus on is their responsibility and execution. That's what "It's about us" means.

Now players like Russell will study game film for tendencies, and DBs will do the same, but it's not as much about "beating them" as it is about "doing our job to the best of our ability."

I'm not explaining it very well, maybe someone else can take a stab at it.

therealjohncarlson wrote:Your not thinking about this from a psychological standpoint is the problem. Pete's mantra is not do be "rah-rah" and baby the players into winning. His strategy is one all great CEOs and others leaders use, which is to pull the best out of each individual by motivating him to be his best. He uses positive re-inforcement to guide the players in the right direction, which is why people get the "rah-rah" vibe from him. Some other coaches use a more corrective negative reinforcement strategy to motivate their players, which works in some situations also.

Exactly. Some coaches use fear. The fear of failure , losing your job. Examples being Jimmy Johnson or Bill Parcells.I would like to see Pete Carroll get through this season ( at the very least) before ownership starts looking at the situation more closely.

The biggest thing the 2012 Seattle Seahawks have going for them is Pete Carroll. This is far from a loaded roster. Competent everywhere, but not exactly filled with superstars. He has this team playing above their heads. That is what a good coach does, period.

"So between my friends and I we have been at every home game to date this year, and we have all been plotting the offensive plays called. " ------Anthony!